Comparing Disaster Management
Comparative Politics and Disasters:Assessing Substantive and
Methodological ContributionsDavid A. McEntire and Sarah Mathis
Emergency Administration and Planning
Department of Public Administration
University of North Texas
P.O. Box 310617
Denton, Tx 76203-0617
Abstract
The following chapter illustrates how the discipline of
comparative politics may help increase our understanding of
disasters in other countries as well as promote more effective
emergency management institutions and practices domestically and
abroad. In seeking to reach this objective, the nature, goals,
history, and background of comparative politics will first be
mentioned. The chapter will then discuss the underappreciated
method of comparison, and identify a number of subject areas that
have been examined or could be addressed by this discipline in the
future. The major argument to be made is that the comparative
method makes unrecognized contributions to disaster studies and
will continue to do so as research advances in the United States
and in foreign territories.Nations can only be understood in
comparative perspective (Lipset 1990, xiii).
The significance of disaster . . . is brought sharply into focus
when one takes a cross-cultural and international view (Dynes 1988,
102).Introduction
According to the renowned disaster sociologist, Thomas Drabek,
the field of emergency management is currently being
professionalized and internationalized (McEntire 2001). These
changes imply that emergency managers are now more knowledgeable
than they were in the past, and suggest that there is increased
effort to expand this valued area of public service to other
countries. Although a great deal of attention is being directed
toward the increasingly recognized profession in terms of new
degree programs, additional academic journals and recurring
conferences sponsored by emergency management associations, we lack
understanding of disasters and emergency management institutions
around the world. This not only calls into question the benefit of
applying research from the United States to other nations, but it
also limits improvements in the field in this country because
lessons are not sufficiently drawn from the positive and negative
experiences of others. The obvious outcome is that disaster
prevention and management is hindered, both here and elsewhere.
With this preface in mind, the goal of the following chapter is to
illustrate how the discipline of comparative politics may help
increase our understanding of disasters in other countries as well
as promote more effective emergency management institutions and
practices internationally. In order to reach this objective the
nature, goals, and historical background of comparative politics
will first be discussed. The chapter will then discuss the
underappreciated method of comparison, and identify a number of
subject areas that have been examined or could be addressed by this
discipline in the future. The major argument to be made is that the
comparative method makes unrecognized contributions to disaster
studies and will continue to do so as research advances across
foreign territories. Comparative Politics and its Relation to
Disasters
The discipline of comparative politics is the study of political
systems and processes around the world (Hauss 1997). It is an area
of scholarship that is interested in understanding all nations and
the political activities that take place within them. This being
the case, comparative politics is sometimes known as comparative
public policy the study of how, why, and to what effect different
governments pursue particular courses or action or inaction
(Heidenheimer, Heclo and Adams 1990, 3). Regardless of the actual
title of the discipline, comparative politics might be the only
field of study based on an explicit methodology. Its approach to
research includes comparing and contrasting variables to identify
why change occurs, what makes for a successful government, and how
policy can be made effective. According to Wiarda (1993, 12),
comparative politics is particularly interested in exploring
patterns, processes, and regularities among political systems. He
further adds that students of comparative politics generally
undertake the following types of research: studies of one country,
studies of two or more countries, regional or area studies, studies
across regions, global comparisons, and thematic studies (Wiarda
1993, 12-15).
As can be seen, comparative politics is an offshoot of political
science, and it initially reflected significant concern for both
historical perspective and the norms of political behavior (Bill
and Hardgrave 1981, 2). Although this area of scholarship can trace
its roots to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it
did not really emerge as a distinct subfield of political science
until the two decades between the two world wars (Rustow and
Erickson 1991, 1). This was a period when scholars became consumed
with understanding why conflict broke out in Europe, how new
government institutions were fairing, and what could be done
differently to ensure political stability and prevent similar
events from recurring. After World War II ended and the
international community entered the Cold War era, interest in
comparative politics grew dramatically. While the United States and
the Soviet Union were aligning themselves with their respective
allies, scholars began to examine the plethora of countries that
made up the Third World. Their goal was to comprehend what these
nations looked like and how they might become more like those in
the West (or East if you were from the communist block).
Comparative politics thus developed a close relationship with
sociology, anthropology, economics and other disciplines in the
social sciences.
While comparative politics is related to many fields of study,
it has not contributed directly to the study of disasters. Indeed,
it would be difficult to find any substantial discussion of
disasters by scholars of comparative politics. However, it is
interesting to note that Green (1994, 143), Walker (1994, 157),
Chirot (1994, 174) and others have traced foment for the
revolutions in Iran, Nicaragua and the Soviet Union to natural and
technological disasters (e.g., earthquakes, Chernobyl) and the
preferential distribution of relief afterwards. Nonetheless,
comparative politics has remained, for the most part, aloof from
disaster studies. But this is not to imply that comparative
politics could not benefit the study of disasters, because there
are a number of issues that overlap considerably between the two
fields (see table 1 below). Disaster researchers have already
recognized the value of these issues and have produced some very
important findings in these areas (Mileti 1999; Peacock, Morrow and
Gladwin 1997; Birkland 1996; Drabek and Hoetmer 1991; Schneider
1995; Dror 1988; Wisner et. al. 1994). More research in these
subject areas is needed however. For instance, how do cultures
around the world view disasters? Why do class relations have such a
large impact on disaster vulnerability? What can be done to
increase political support for disaster mitigation policies? Are
intergovernmental relations problematic in foreign disasters? What
steps can be taken to improve emergency management around the
world? Do models such as incrementalism, group think, or
misperception shed light on decision making before and after
disasters? What is the relationship between development and
disasters? These are only a few of the questions that could be
addressed by scholars interested in comparative politics. Table
1
Subject Area
Application to Disaster Studies
Political Culture What values and attitudes affect disaster
policy?
Socioeconomic StatusHow do poverty/powerlessness relate to
vulnerability?
Interest Groups Why is apathy towards disasters so common?
Institutions/State How do governments/agencies operate in
disasters?
Public Policy
What makes emergency management effective?
Decision Making Why are choice difficult to make in disaster
situations?
Development
Does modernization increase/decrease vulnerability?
Methods
The greatest potential contribution of comparative politics to
disaster studies is in the area of methods. In fact, comparative
politics defines itself by a methodological instead of substantive
label (Lijphart 1971, 682), and this method may do much to advance
the study of disaster. But, what exactly is the comparative method
and how does it relate to other research methodologies? What
problems are inherent in comparison and how can these be overcome?
Finally, what are the benefits of comparative research?
First, the well-known comparativist Arend Lijphart defines the
comparative method as the analysis of a small number of cases,
entailing at least two observations, but less than about twenty
(Collier 1991, 8). Sartori suggests that this analysis of comparing
is both to assimilate and to differentiate (1991, 246). He then
adds:If two entities are similar in everything, in all their
characteristics, then they are the same entity. If, on the other
hand, two entities are different in every respect, then their
comparison is nonsensical . . . . The comparisons in which we
sensible and actually engage are thus the ones between entities
whose attributes are in part shared (similar) and in part
non-shared (and thus, we say incomparable) (Sartori 1991, 246).
Prezworski and Teune (1970) also note, however, that our
comparisons may be based on most similar or most different
designs.
The comparative method is similar to other methods in the social
sciences because much of the subject matter in this area does not
lend itself to the scientific rigors of experimentation (Lijphart
1971). Nevertheless, comparison lies between the case study and
statistical methods because of its modest scope. On the one hand,
case studies are utilized to describe, generate hypotheses, confirm
theory or expose deviant situations. They are relatively easy to
conduct, but they do not allow for far-reaching generalizations. On
the other hand, the statistical method is employed to control
relationships by mathematically manipulating dependent and
independent variables. Although statistics approximates
experimentation, this type of method can be very time consuming and
expensive (due to the large number of variables involved). The
comparative method is thus less difficult to utilize than the
statistical method and it also helps to generate stronger
conclusions than the case study method.
This is not to say that the comparative method is void of
problems. Sartori (1991) has identified five typical problems with
this method:
1. Parochialism focusing on one country only and failing to
incorporate and build upon prior research.2. Misclassification
placing phenomena into pseudo classes.
3. Degreeism finding it difficult to choose between continuums
and categories.
4. Conceptual stretching implying that certain words mean
everything (e.g., for ideological purposes).
5. Incommensurability failing to find a common measure for
different systems or variables.
But these challenges need not be insurmountable. They can be
overcome by increasing the number of cases, reducing the number of
variables, and including comparable phenomena in research
strategies (Collier 1991).
In spite of these weaknesses, there are a number of advantages
associated with the comparative method. It has been suggested that
the comparative method allows systemic comparison which, if
appropriately utilized, can contribute to the assessment of
alternative explanations (Collier 1991, 10). In other words
comparison helps us to understand, explain, interpret, and verify
or falsify generalizations (Sartori 1991, 244). Furthermore,
comparison facilitates thick description (Geertz 1973) and limits
conceptual stretching (Satori 1991). Summarizing these points,
Collier states:
Comparison sharpens our powers of description and can be an
invaluable stimulus to concept formation. It provides criteria for
testing hypotheses and contributes to the inductive discovery of
new hypotheses and to theory building (1991, 7).
Is it any wonder, then, that the scientific method is inherently
comparative (Lasswell 1968, 3), or that comparison is regarded to
be equivalent to the natural scientist laboratory (Eckstein in
Lijphart 1971)?
Ironically, the discipline of comparative politics has been
notably slow to fully adopt the comparative method. Macridis
asserted in 1955 that the discipline did not live up to its name
when it was initially founded. Sartori even declares that not much
has changed in the last fifty years:Let us squarely face it: normal
science is not doing well. A field defined by its method comparing
cannot prosper without a core method. My critique does not imply,
to be sure, that good, even excellent, comparative work is no
longer under way. But even the current good comparative work
underachieves on account of having lost sight of what comparing is
for (1991, 255).
Disaster studies should not make the same mistake.
Potential and Actual Contributions of ComparisonIt is evident
that comparison enables an understanding of important phenomena.
Comparison can help one identify the hazards confront by policy
makers, the varying impact of disasters on distinct nations, and
the degree of vulnerability in other countries. Comparative work
has also been useful to understand emergency management
organizations and human behavior around the world. Researchers have
likewise produced a number of case and comparative studies which
may facilitate understanding of disaster and emergency management
internationally. Each of these areas will be discussed in turn.
Hazards around the WorldFirst, the use of comparison helps us to
better understand the disasters that may affect nations around the
world. The potential for disaster is growing everywhere, but the
types of events experienced are based on each country's geography,
their use of technology and many other factors.
For instance, African nations face a vast variety of disasters.
In 2003, twenty-eight disasters were declared in Africa by the
United Nations. The continent is ravaged by floods, droughts,
cyclones, earthquakes, and food security emergencies. Moreover, the
AIDS epidemic is running rampant throughout many African nations.
Of these, however, eleven were complex emergencies. A complex
emergency is often sparked by a natural disaster and/or political,
economic, or environmental stress. Complex emergencies are also
marked by political or military conflict that impedes response and
relief efforts (Minear and Weiss, 1995, p. 17).
While Africa is overwhelmingly afflicted with complex
emergencies, Asia declared only two in 2003. Asian nations more
commonly face hydrometeorological hazards. Floods have been the
cause of disaster situations in Vietnam, Indonesia, China, and Sri
Lanka. Typhoons have wreaked havoc in Korea, Fiji, and the Solomon
Islands. In addition to floods and typhoons, drought and epidemics
are also a common problem for Asian nations.
Europe and the Middle East have had to deal with terrorism as a
rising source of disaster. Suicide bombers in England, Spain, and
Israel have all forced emergency personnel to reevaluate their
methods in mitigating and responding to terrorists. In addition to
terrorism, fire, floods, and shipping accidents have been the cause
of disasters throughout these areas.
In Latin America, geological disasters are declared with some
frequency. Ecuador, Chile, Costa Rica, and Mexico have had issues
with volcanoes. Mexico has also been damaged by earthquakes.
Floods, droughts, and hurricanes also pose threats for countries in
this area.
In North America, the United States faces hazards such as
terrorism, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados. Earthquakes are
commonplace in California, tornados ravage the Midwest, and
hurricanes menace the Eastern and Gulf coasts. Indeed, the
variation of climates and geography make it vulnerable to all types
of disasters. Terrorism has risen to new heights of awareness since
the coordinated attacks of 9/11. Canada also is at risk from
similar hazards. In addition, their northern location presents them
with severe winter storms.
Impact of DisastersDisasters have plagued mankind throughout
history. Indeed, tales of floods and famines have been passed down
for generations. In this modern age, the occurrence of disasters
has only become more frequent. The United Nations reports a steady
increase of disasters across the globe (UNISDR, 2004
The UN/ISDR reports that the countries most severely affected by
disasters are of low or medium income, and rank low on the scale of
human development. Approximately 80% of disasters are in
predominantly developing areas (Alexander, 1991, p. 212). When
disasters strike a developing nation, a high number of human deaths
result. The top 25 countries that experienced the highest numbers
of people both affected and killed by disasters between 1994-2003
were all developing nations (see appendix A). As an example, the
tsunami that hit Asia in December 2004 left close to 200,000 people
dead, and 100,000 missing (USAID, 2005, p.1). Mileti and his
colleagues say that losses from natural disasters occur because of
development that is unsustainable (1995, p. 122). This means that
land use planning is lacking, that basic needs are not being met,
and that the environment is being degraded. Other reports reveal
that underdeveloped nations tend to focus their resources on issues
apart from disaster preparedness, and only deal with a disaster
after it hits (Aleskerov et al., 2005, p. 256).
While disasters strike the developing world with alarming
regularity, they also ravage developed nations. However, developed
nations are impacted by fifteen percent of disasters, and their
death toll accounts for only 1.8 percent of the total deaths
(United Nations, 2004). The effects of disasters in developed
nations are felt more strongly in the economic sector, although the
strength of their economies are better able to absorb such high
losses. During the period of 1994-2003, the countries that suffered
the highest economic loss were the United States and Japan (see
appendix B). As an example, after the attack on New York Citys
World Trade Center, the economic impact was felt much beyond the
destruction of the buildings. Economic damage and loss estimates
range up into the billions of dollars (Cochrane, 2004, p 293). More
recently, the death toll projections from Hurricane Katrina were
initially reported in the ten thousands. However, as recovery
progressed the toll did not reach the one thousand mark. Instead,
the economic factors were more prevalent as major ports in New
Orleans were shut down, impacting the shipping and oil companies as
well as the tourism industry. Total costs are estimated at $150 to
$200 billion. Thus, disasters affect all nations but in very
different ways. The Vulnerability of Nations The distinct impact of
disasters is a result of the nature and degree of vulnerability.
Vulnerability is defined as a measure of proneness to disaster
along with the ability to effectively withstand or react to their
adverse consequences (see Watts and Bohle 1993; Comfort et. al.
1999; Wisner et. al. 2004). McEntire (2004) describes this
proneness in terms of the liabilities of risk and susceptibility,
and he explains that coping ability is determined by the degree of
resistance and resilience. This model consequently captures both
the positive and negative features associated with the physical and
social environments, and includes variables such as land use
planning, politics, economics, culture, psychology, engineering,
and institutions. Development can also be linked both positively
and negatively to vulnerability (McEntire, 2004). Researchers
report that countries with middle and low human development have a
higher incidence of disasters (see Appendix C), which is
particularly evident in 1999. This disparity is a product of social
systems being more vulnerable than others.
As indicated previously, developed nations do not reflect
casualties as heavily as developing nations. Their vulnerability is
lower because of their ability to acquire and employ greater
resources. The wealth of developed nations allows them to allocate
funds for mitigation and preparedness measures. As an example,
studies are often funded in these countries to identify
hazard-prone areas and recommend appropriate measures for
protection. Elaborate training systems are created to prepare
disaster response teams in developed nations. Everyone from first
responders to community volunteers can access training to more
quickly and efficiently respond to a crisis. Furthermore, education
and technology are relied upon in these countries to develop
warning systems for the general public.
Australia, Sweden, and the United States are examples of
developed nations that have advanced emergency management
institutions. Australias national government has an emergency
management program that focuses heavily on using education to
reduce vulnerability. The United States is now requiring that
communities develop mitigation action plans to address rising
disaster losses and it is giving special attention to WMD
preparedness. SEMA, the Swedish Emergency Management Agency, takes
responsibility to effectively coordinate their societys ability to
respond to crises. However, mistakes are still made frequently in
developed nations and they have a bearing on vulnerability. For
instance, beachfront property is a luxury commodity for the wealthy
and such locations are at risk due to hurricanes. People also
increase their vulnerability by building their communities on fault
lines or near industrial centers. Developed nations do not have
perfect emergency management programs.
In comparison to developed nations, developing countries
typically lack education, funding, and equipment to reduce their
vulnerability. In Botswana, Africa, AIDS spreads quickly because of
a lack of education about the transmission of the disease.
Developing societies are vulnerable to other hazards because of
their impoverished living conditions and weak warning systems.
Building codes are rarely established or enforced in developing
nations. For instance, squatter towns in Bhopal, India, built near
the Union Carbide chemical plant, were partly responsible for the
high death rate when poisonous gas leaked from the facility in
1984. Villages on the coast of Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India were
washed away during the Tsunami of 2005 because of their dangerous
location and primitive construction. Nepal has institutions that
focus on landslide management and floods, but they have not
established a joint, integrated warning system and vulnerability is
not addressed (Paudel, 2003, p. 481).
Both developed and developing nations are affected by
technology, industry, and culture. Developed nations are facing
increased technological disasters as computers become more
integrated into every part of their lives. Developing nations, on
the other hand, may lack the familiarity with new forms of
technology that could reduce or cause disasters. Each group faces
adverse risks associated with hazardous material incidents, even
though manufacturing plants are increasingly being moved to the
developing world. People and governments in both developed and
developing nations continue to make mistakes regarding disasters.
They each can be found guilty of downplaying risk, augmenting
social susceptibility, relying too heavily on technical remedies,
and failing to strengthen emergency management institutions.
Organization of Emergency ManagementThere are relatively few
studies about official disaster organizations and activities around
the world, but there are some notable exceptions. Benjamin McLuckie
completed one of the earliest comparative studies of official
emergency management organizations while he was a Ph.D. candidate
at the Disaster Research Center. His study examined the disaster
management organizations in Japan, Italy, and the United States
(1970). McLuckies research indicated that, in times of disaster,
the United States maintained a more decentralized authority
structure when compared with Italy or Japan. He recognized that
organizational arrangement can potentially have a dramatic
influence on the effectiveness of disaster organizations because it
determines the speed of response. Other studies about Russia, the
United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, have been conducted by
Porfiriev (1999), OBrien and Read (2005), Gabriel (2002), and
Britton and Clark (2000).
During the Cold War, Russia had a strong emphasis on civil
protection because of the threat of nuclear attack from the U.S.
Nuclear fall-out shelters and evacuation procedures were emphasized
because of the immediate crisis and threat of mutual destruction.
As Cold War hostilities dissipated, Russia began to produce
legislation to revamp emergency management. The Russian government
realized that effective emergency management required a structured,
developed system. Russia is now integrating additional mitigation
and preparedness measures into their programs, thus becoming more
pro-active than reactive in their strategies (Porfiriev, 1999b, p.
1).
The United Kingdom labels their emergency management program in
terms of a laudable goal: the UK Resilience. In 2004, the United
Kingdom passed the Civil Contingencies Act. The Act was responsible
for redefining emergency management methods, including roles,
responsibilities, training, and powers (O-Brien and Read, 2005). UK
Resilience gives local governments the authority to handle issues
at their level. However, it is still unclear to whom the local
authorities should report and information does not flow smoothly
between the national and local authorities. This has a potential to
create confusion when disaster strikes. As such, there have been
questions about the UK Resilience approach (O-Brien and Read, 2005,
p. 356).
Australia, similar to the UK, has developed an emergency
management program that focuses on resilience. The Australian
Emergency Management Agency (EMA) does not respond directly to
emergencies. Rather, as an agency of the commonwealth, it provides
resources, finances, training, and research. Australia delegates
responsibility for emergency management to individual states and
territories. It has only been recently that Australia has begun to
focus on prevention and mitigation measures (Gabriel, 2002,
p.296).
In the 1990s, New Zealand conducted a study of its emergency
management structure and found significant vulnerabilities that had
never been addressed. A task force was created to examine these
potential problems. It recommended that the government move more
quickly and farther into areas of professional development (Britton
and Clark, 2000, p. 146). Decision makers then redefined the roles
and responsibilities of the primary actors involved in emergency
management, and created the Ministry for Emergency Management in
1999. The new system was based on principles that included an
all-hazards approach, and involvement of volunteer agencies and the
community. The local governments were issued the authority to
handle emergencies, provided they had the capability (Britton and
Clark, 2000, p. 147).
Britton offers continued insight through his comparative studies
of New Zealand, Japan, and the Philippines. In comparison to New
Zealand, Japans overall approach to emergency management is
centralized/directive, fragmented, and reactive (Britton,
forthcoming, p. 10). The Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act of 1959
defines the disaster management policies for each level of
government, and this act has been revised in subsequent years
(Britton, forthcoming, p. 11). However, after the Kobe earthquake,
rivalry, competition and failure to use designated focal agencies
was evidence that further measures still needed to be taken to
strengthen the emergency response plan (Britton, forthcoming, p.
14). As a result, the 1998 Comprehensive National Development Act
identifies methods such as improved construction codes and
projects, research, and warning systems that will aid in making
Japan a safer and more resilient nation (Britton, forthcoming, p.
12).
The Philippines also has a centralized approach to national
emergency management. Their system, while more hierarchical than
Japan and the U.S., is also fragmented and reactive. President
Quezon developed their system after World War II. The National
Disaster Coordinating Council does not have its own budget; rather,
it operates through various other agencies (Britton, forthcoming,
p. 21). While disaster management is typically handled by the
central government, the powers to focus on the area of risk
reduction are limited. The system lacks a comprehensive, organized,
proactive, and participatory structure. The Philippines has been
criticized by the World Bank for its ad-hoc approach to disasters
(Britton, forthcoming, p. 23).
There are other examples of comparative research. For instance,
Newton conducted a study of the United States and Canada. Although
located on the same continent, the vastness of both countries
affects the natural hazards they each face. Canada, in general,
experiences less natural hazards than the U.S. However, their
northern location has caused them to be more adaptive to severe
weather (Newton, 1997, p. 225). The Canadian emergency management
program assigns responsibility to local, provincial, and
territorial governments. The emergency management program chooses
to focus on preparation initiatives rather than mitigation directly
(Newton, 1997, p. 226). The national government sets standards,
provides leadership, and attempts to oversee the development of the
overall ability to respond to a disaster. In contrast, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency of the United States created a
Mitigation Directorate in 1993. Consequently, the U.S. has seen a
reduction in fatalities and property loses generally attributed to
its mitigation programs (Newton, 1997, p. 228). Nevertheless, an
argument can be made that the focus on mitigation has waned in
recent years due to the threat of terrorism.
These studies reveal that the actors, organization, and
activities associated with disaster planning and management will
vary according to country. Hazards, culture, history, political
objectives, and current events influence emergency management
organizations around the world. Unfortunately, comparative studies
of emergency management institutions have been limited.
Human Behavior
Cross-national and international studies on emergence provide
insight on disaster response in various locations. Studies have
been conducted in Mexico, Russia, Japan, and the United States. For
instance, after the gasoline explosion in Guadalajara, Mexico,
emergent behavior was similar to patterns displayed in the United
States. Aguirre et. al (1995) study of that particular disaster
underscores the importance of pre-existing social organization.
Those that responded and began search and rescue efforts were
generally immediate relatives and close friends of victims.
Scawthorn and Wenger (1990, p. 3) found that the first people to
respond in the U.S. and Mexico were part of extending or emergent
groups. However, there are also differences that can be noted
between the two countries.
In Mexico Citys 1985 earthquake, the percentage of people who
volunteered their efforts was much smaller than in the U.S. Only
9.8 percent volunteered their services, though in real numbers this
accounts for 2 million people (Quarantelli, 1989, p. 2; see also
Vigo and Wenger, 1994, p. 239; Wenger and James, 1990, p. 6;
Scawthorn and Wenger, 1990, p. 4). The emergent groups in Mexico
typically converged from outside of the impacted area. They were
generally larger groups and tightly knit socially (Vigo and Wenger,
1994, p. 240; Wenger, 1992, p. 5). Quarantelli (1989, p. 6)
likewise found that families played a greater role in sheltering
efforts in Mexico than in the U.S.
Behavior in Russia and the United States has also been compared.
In Russia, as in the U.S., emergent groups are the first to begin
search and rescue efforts (Porfiriev, 1996, p. 223). However,
Porfieriev (1996) notes that the organization in Russia is more
centralized than those in the U.S. The U.S. government has a fairly
decentralized approach, but Porfiriev (1996, p. 96) says his
government provided practically all financial, material and a
considerable part of the human resources needed to cope after an
earthquake in the late 1990s. Looting was also reported after this
earthquake, a finding that contradicts previous findings in the
U.S. (Porfiriev, 1996, p. 223).
Similarities and differences between Japan and the U.S. have
also been examined. Both nations exhibit cooperative emergent
phenomena after a disaster. The Japanese Mafia (yamaguchigumi) even
collaborated with their government after a disaster (Comfort,
1996). It has been noted, however, that emergent behavior is more
likely to happen in the United States than in Japan (Drabek, 1987,
p. 278).
A final comparative study is between Italy and the U.S. Each
nation suffered a major flood: the U.S. in 1993 and Italy in 1994.
Both nations were quick to respond to the disaster. Survey results
showed that while the Americans affected were knowledgeable and
prepared to recover, the Italians were relatively unprepared to
cope (Marincioni, 2001, p.217). In both countries, emergent
phenomenon was observed at the community level (Marincioni, 2001,
p. 219). Permanent volunteer organizations were particularly useful
in both countries. The established social associations were
remarkable in identifying and meeting the needs of the affected
populations (Marincioni, 2001, p. 219). The examples indicate both
similarities and differences in terms of human behavior in
disaster, and illustrate the need for further cross-national
studies of emergent behavior. Additional Case Studies and
Comparative Research
Much, if not most, of the research on disasters uses a case
study methodology. Case studies provide valuable information about
particular disaster situations. Researchers have examined many
cases in the United States. Robert Bolins (1990) book about the
Loma Prieta earthquake is an excellent example. Part one of the
book covers the economic and social costs attributed to the quake,
as well as information about how it compares to previous
earthquakes. Part two looks at organizational behavior,
psychological impacts, gender roles, and concludes with a look at
shelter and housing issues. The book therefore provides a detailed
discussion about emergency management issues after Loma Prieta.
Walter Peacock, Betty Hearn Morrow, and Hugh Gladwin edited the
book Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender, and the Sociology of
Disaster (1997). The socio-political ecology of Miami before the
storm, warning and evacuation procedures, and crisis
decision-making are each examined. In addition, sociological
response of gendered groups, ethnic and racial inequalities, and a
variety of familial responses are also documented. It is a must
have for those interested in the topic of social vulnerability.
Beyond September 11th is a third book that can be mentioned. Its
contributors examined issues in relation to the engineered
environment as it pertains to buildings and infrastructure,
individual and collective behavior, the roles of private sector
groups, and finally the public policy and political contexts of the
disaster. It is a very comprehensive and multi-disciplinary
assessment of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
There are other case studies written about particular functions
within a disaster. Benigno Aguirre (1988) discusses the lack of
warnings before a tornado in Saragosa, Texas. He relates
effectiveness to the existence of a common shared culture, and
emphasizes the importance of adapting warning systems to
multicultural social contexts. Henry Fischer and his colleagues
(1995) focus their research on evacuations. They outline various
ways of increasing the likelihood of people heeding an evacuation
warning.
Organizations have also been the subject of case studies. John
Broullette (1970) discussed how adaptation to disaster demands is
best accomplished by organizations that have material and personnel
resources maintained and ready to utilize. Will Kennedy (1970)
studied the organization and tasks of police departments in times
of disaster. E.L. Quarantelli (1970) focused his research on
community hospitals and the problems they must address in dealing
with disaster scenarios. Martin Smith (1978) examined the response
of various religious organizations after a tornado in Ohio.
Researchers have conducted case studies regarding management
issues. Brenda Phillips (1993) looks at the impact of gender and
diversity in relation to disaster response operations. James Kendra
and Trisha Wachtendorf (2003) focus their case study on elements of
resilience present in New York Citys emergency operations center
after the attacks of 9-11 and note that creativity is extremely
beneficial. Robert Bolin and Lois Stanford (1998) examine community
response to unmet needs after the Northridge earthquake response.
Richard Olson, Robert Olson, and Vincent Garanski (1998) use their
case study of the Loma Prieta earthquake to stress that the
recovery period offers the greatest opportunity for mitigation.
Swaroop Reddys (2000) article examined Hurricane Hugo and addresses
factors that foster mitigation measures during disaster
recovery.
Case study research has also focused on disasters outside of the
United States. Stuart Batho, Gwyndaf Williams, and Lynne Russell
(1999) looked at the terrorist bombing of the Manchester City
Centre in Manchester, England. Their study uncovered the emergency
responders ability to deal with the crisis immediately and then
transition through the recovery process. Boris Porfiriev (1996)
focused his case study on organizational response to the Sakhalin
earthquake. The paper covers social consequences of organizational
response based on one of the worst earthquakes in Russias history.
Poor response or, in some cases, the inability to respond on behalf
of Russian emergency personnel, resulted in a lack of communication
about the earthquakes magnitude and destructive toll. This impeded
search and rescue and evacuation efforts, and exacerbated the chaos
of the disaster. Francis Terry (2001) looks at the rail disaster in
South London, and suggests the importance of exemplary safety
standards in such an industry. Pan Suk Kim and Jae Eun Lee (2001)
examine emergency management framework in South Korea.
Traditionally, emergency management in this country has focused on
natural disasters. The authors point out that it is necessary for
the Korean Government to also focus on mitigation and response for
man-made disasters. During the same year, Habib Zafarullah,
Mohammad Habibur Rahman, and Mohammad Mohabbat Khan (2001) studied
the disaster management strategies in Bangladesh. These scholars
provide an overview of Bangladeshi disaster management as it stands
today, and also assess areas of weakness and constraint that should
be addressed.
Other case studies indicate the need for a holistic approach to
emergency management. McEntire (2003) looks at how social and
physical environmental interaction can lead to disasters. He based
his work on Hurricane Georges impact on the Dominican Republic.
McEntire and Christopher Fuller (2002) further examine the need for
a holistic theoretical viewpoint by studying Perus El Nio
disasters. Alpaslan zerdem and Sultan Barakat (2000) emphasize a
similar theme in their investigation of the 1999 Marmara earthquake
in Turkey.
Comparative studies have also been utilized to provide valuable
information on emergency management practices. Joseph Scanlon
(1994) compares the roles emergency operations centers in Canada
and the United States. Tricia Wachtendorf (2000) used comparison to
study the response of Canada and the United States to the flooding
of the Red River in 1997. John Harrald and Hugh Stephens (2001)
examined the maritime transportation disaster caused by the
explosion of two ships carrying fertilizer in Texas City with the
Exxon Valdez oil spill in Price William Sound, Alaska. Frances
Winslow (2001) analyzes the lessons that can be drawn from the
accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Alice Fothergill,
Enrique Maestas, and JoAnne DeRouen Darlington studied vulnerable
groups across disasters in the United States. They also compare
disaster response and its variation based on factors of ethnicity
and race. Dennis Mileti and Eve Passerini (1996) explore three
relocation decisions employed after earthquakes. Robert Bolin and
Patricia Bolton study the recovery of families in Managua,
Nicaragua versus the Rapid City, South Dakota. Richard Olson and A.
Cooper Drury (1997) use a cross-national analysis to compare
political unrest that occurs throughout societies after various
disasters. Olson also teamed up with Vincent Gawronski (2003) to
contrast the 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua with the 1985 earthquake
in Mexico City. They find that the Nicaraguan earthquake forced the
government to shift its focus and goals, while, surprisingly, the
Mexico City earthquake had no such effect on its government. Tim
Ziaukas (2001) investigates the public relations aspects of
disaster response between the Bhopal chemical release with the
Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ronald Perry and Hirotada Hirose (1991)
look at volcano management in Japan contrasted with the
administration activities in the United States. Comparison has
therefore been utilized as a methodology in disaster and emergency
management research in the US and around the world.Discussion and
Conclusion
It should be readily apparent from this chapter that disaster
studies may gain much from the discipline of comparative politics.
Its subjects (e.g., political culture, socioeconomic status,
interest groups, institutions, public policy, decision making and
development) have recently been investigated by disaster
researchers and many fruitful avenues of research are being opened
as a result. In addition, the method of comparison allows us to
comprehend the unique mix of hazards that face countries around the
world. It is also useful to understand the impact of disasters on
developed and developing nations, as well as alternate explanations
for their varying degrees of vulnerability. Comparison likewise
elucidates common and divergent behavioral patterns in disasters,
and enables a better understanding of emergency management
institutions internationally. The comparative method has certainly
been used by disaster scholars, with increasing frequency over
time. Nevertheless, we do have to be extremely careful to assume
that concepts, issues and variables are equivalent across cultures
and systems (Peacock 1997, 125).
There are also many opportunities to advance our knowledge about
disasters and emergency management activities by fully engaging the
comparative method. For instance, we need to learn more about the
similarities and differences of complex emergencies, terrorist
attacks and other types of disasters. Research is needed on varying
levels of vulnerability in the developed and developing worlds, and
what we should do about the disturbing trends that are confronting
us. Furthermore, there is a great deal of research on disasters in
the United States and select other countries (Dynes, 1988). Much
less is known about emergency management institutions in Asia,
Africa and Latin America. While several important case studies on
disasters have been conducted, we lack systematic information about
these issues and events in other nations around the world. More
research will need to follow the excellent comparative work
presented in this chapter. The major finding of this chapter,
therefore, is that researchers must fully recognize the value of
comparison and do more to apply this method in their future
studies. Effectively utilizing the comparative method will
undoubtedly enable us to better comprehend the deadly, destructive
and disruptive events we call disasters. Comparison will also
improve the practice of emergency management as it permits us to
learn from the mistakes and success of others.
Appendix ATop 25 countries in absolute and relative values of
people killed and affected 1994 - 2003
Source of data: EM-DAT : The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database. http://www.em-dat.net, UCL - Brussels, Belgium
Appendix B
Total amount of economic damages reported : all disasters 1994 -
2003 (2003 US $ billion)
Source of data: EM-DAT : The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database. http://www.em-dat.net, UCL - Brussels, Belgium
Appendix CTotal number of disasters by year 1994-2003(according
to human development aggregates)
Source of data: EM-DAT : The OFDA/CRED International Disaster
Database. http://www.em-dat.net, UCL - Brussels, Belgium
ReferencesAguirre, Benigno. 1988. Feedback from the Field. The
Lack of Warning Before the Saragoso Tornado. International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disaster 6(1): 65-74.
Aleskerov, F., Say, A.I., Toker, A., Akin, H., Altay, G. 2005. A
Cluster based decision support System for estimating earthquake
damage and casualties, Journal of Disaster Studies And Policy
Management 29:256
Alexander, David. 1991. Natural disasters: a framework for
research and teaching. Disasters 15: 209-26
Australian Emergency Management, 2005. Emergency Management in
Australia. Accessed at http://www.ema.gov.au/ on Oct. 2.
Batho, Stuart, Gwyndof Williams and Lynne Russell. 1999. Crisis
Management to Controlled Recovery: The Emergency Planning Response
to the Bombing of Manchester City Centre. Overseas Development
Institute. 217-231.
Bill, James A. and Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. 1981. Comparative
Politics: The Quest for Theory. University Press of America:
Lanham, MD.
Birkland, Thomas A. 1996. Natural Disasters as Focusing Events:
Policy Communities and Political Response. International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters 14 (2): 221-243.Bolin, Robert (ed.).
1990. The Loma Prieta Earthquake Studies of Short-Term Impacts.
Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
Bolin, Robert and Lois Standford. 1998. The Northridge
Earthquake: Community-based Approaches. Disasters 22(1): 21-38.
Britton, Neil. and Clark, Gerard. 2000. From response to
resilience: emergency management reform in New Zealand. Natural
Hazards Review 1 (3) 145-150.
Britton, Neil. (forthcoming). National Planning and Response:
National Systems in Handbook of Disaster Research. Disaster
Research Center: University of Delaware.
Brouillette, John. 1970. The Department of Public Works
Adaptation to Disaster Demands. American Behavioral Scientist.
13(3): 369-379.Bolin, Robert and Patricia Bolton. 1983. Recovery in
Nicaragua and the U.S.A. International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters. 1:125-152.
Chirot, Daniel. 1994. The East European Revolutions of 1989. Pp.
165-180 in Goldstone, Jack A. (ed.) Revolutions: Theoretical,
Comparative and Historical Studies. Harcourt Brace: Orlando,
Fl.Cochrane, Hal. 2004. Economic loss: myth and measurement
Disaster Prevention and Management 13: 290-296.
Collier, David. 1991. The Comparative Method: Two Decades of
Change. Pp. 7-31 in Rustow, Dankwart A. and Kenneth Paul Erickson
(eds.) Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research
Perspectives. HarperCollins: New York.
Comfort, L. 1996. Self-organization in disaster response: the
Great Hanshin, Japan Earthquake of January 17, 1995. Quick Response
Report No. 78, Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado,
Boulder, CO.
Comfort, L., Wisner, B., Cutter., S. Pulwarty, R., Hewitt, K.,
Oliver-Smith, A., Wiener, J., Fordham., M., Peacock, W., and
Krimgold, F. 1999. "Reframing Disaster Policy: The Global Evolution
of Vulnerable Communities." Environmental Hazards 1: 39-44Drabek,
T. 1987. Emergent Structures, in Dynes, R., De Marchi, B. and
Pelanda, C. (Eds), Sociology of Disasters: Contribution of
Sociology to Disaster Research, Franco Angeli, Milan, pp.
190-259.
Drabek, Thomas E. and Gerard J. Hoetmer. 1991. Emergency
Management: Principles and Practices for Local Government. ICMA:
Washington, D.C.
Dror, Yehezkel. 1988. Decision Making Under Disaster Conditions.
Pp. 255-273 in Comfort, Louise (ed.) Managing Disasters:
Administrative and Policy Strategies. Duke University Press:
Durham, N.C.
Dynes, Russell R. 1988. Cross-cultural International Research:
Sociology and Disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters 6 (2): 101-129.
EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRD International Disaster Database. 2005. Top
25 countries in absolute and relative values of people killed and
affected 1994 2003 Accessed at http://www.em-dat.net on Sept.
20.EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRD International Disaster Database. 2005.
Total amount of economic damages reported : all disasters 1994 -
2003 (2003 US $ billion) Accessed at http://www.em-dat.net on Sept.
20.EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRD International Disaster Database. 2005.
Total number of disasters by year 1994-2003 Accessed at
http://www.em-dat.net on Oct. 2.
Fischer, H. George Stine, Brenda Stoker, Marna Trowbridge, and
Eric Drain. 1995. Evacuation behaviour: why do some evacuate, while
others do not? A case study of the Ephrata, Pennsylvania
evacuation. Disaster Prevention and Management. 4(4): 30-36.
Fothergill, Alice, Enrique G.M. Maestas, and JoAnne DeRouen
Darlington. 1999. Race, Ethnicity, and Disasters in the United
States: A Review of Literature. Disasters. 23(2):156-173
Gabriel, Paul. 2002. The development to municipal emergency
management planning in Victoria, Australia. International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 20 (3): 293-307.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick Description: Toward an
Interpretive Theory of Culture. In The Interpretation of Cultures.
Basic Books: New York.Green, Jerrold D. 1994. Countermobilization
in the Iranian Revolution. Pp. 136-146 in Goldstone, Jack A. (ed.)
Revolutions: Theoretical, Comparative and Historical Studies.
Harcourt Brace: Orlando, Fl.
Harrold, John and Hugh Stephens. From Texas City to Exxon
Valdez: What Have We Learned About Managing Marine Disasters? Pp.
231-44 in Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management, edited by
Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Hauss, Charles. 1997. Comparative Politics: Domestic Responses
to Global Challenges. West Publishing Company: St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Hugh Heclo and Carolyn Teich Adams.
1990. Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in
America, Europe and Japan. St. Martins Press: New York.Homeland
Security, National Response Plan. 2005. Accessed at
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml
on Oct. 2.
Kendra, James and Trisha Wachtendorf. 2003. Elements of
Resilience after the World Trade Center Disaster: Reconstituting
New York Citys Emergency Operations Centre. Disasters 27(1):
37-53.
Kennedy, W.C. 1970. Police Departments: Organization and Tasks
in Disaster. American Behavioral Scientist. 13(3):354-361.
Kim, Pan Suk and Jae Eun Lee. 2001. Emergency Management in
Koria: Mourning over Tragic Deaths. Pp. 501-19 in Handbook of
Crisis and Emergency Management, edited by Ali Farazmand. New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Lasswell, Harold D. 1968. The Future of the Comparative Method.
Comparative Politics 1 (1): 3-18.
Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative Politics and the Comparative
Method. American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682-693.Lipset,
Seymour Martin. 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and
Institutions of the United States and Canada. Routledge: New
York.
Macridis, Roy. 1955. The Study of Comparative Government.
Doubleday: New York.Marincioni, F. 2001. A cross-cultural analysis
of natural disaster response: the northwest Italy floods of 1994
compared to the U.S. Midwest floods of 1993. International Journal
of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 19 (2): 209-39.
McEntire, David A. 2001. The Internationalization of Emergency
Management: Challenges and Opportunities Facing an Expanding
Profession. International Association of Emergency Managers
Bulletin. (October): 3-4.
McEntire, David A. 2004. "Tenets of Vulnerability: An Assessment
of a Fundamental Disaster Concept." Journal of Emergency Management
2 (2): 23-29.
McEntire, David A. 2004. "Development, Disasters and
Vulnerability: A Discussion of Divergent Theories and the need for
their integration." Disaster Prevention and Management 13 (3):
193-198.
McEntire, David. 2003. Causation of catastrophe: Lessons from
Hurricane Georges. Journal of Emergency Management. 1(2):
22-29.
McEntire, David and Christopher Fuller. 2002. The need for a
holistic theoretical approach: an examination from the El Nio
disasters in Peru. Disaster Prevention and Management. 11(2):
128-140.
Mileti, D.S., Darlington, J.D., Passaini, E., Forest, B.C., and
Myers, M.F. 1995. Toward an integration of natural hazards and
sustainability, Environmental Professional 17:117-26.
Mileti, Dennis and Eve Passerini. 1996. A Social Explanation of
Urban Relocation after Earthquakes. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters. 14(1): 97-110.
Mileti, Dennis. 1999. Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of
Natural Hazards in the United States. Joseph Henry Press:
Washington, D.C.Minear, Larry. And Weiss, Thomas. 1995. Mercy Under
Fire: War and the Global Humanitarian Community. Boulder, Colorado:
Westview Press, Inc.
Monday, Jacquelyn (ed.). 2003. Beyond September 11th: an account
of post-disaster research. Boulder,CO: University of Colorado.
Newton, John. 1997. Federal legislation for disaster mitigation:
a comparative assessment between Canada and the United States.
Natural Hazards 16: 219-241.
O-Brien, Geoff. and Read, Paul. 2005. Future UK emergency
management: new wine, old skin? Disaster Prevention and Management
14 (3): 353-361.
Olson, Richard Stuart and Vincent T. Gawronski. 1985. Disasters
as Critical Junctures? Managua, Nicaragua 1972 and Mexico City
1985. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.
21(1): 5-35.
Olson, Richard Stuart and A. Cooper Drury. 1997. Un-Therapeutic
Communities: A Cross-National Analysis of Post-Disaster Political
Unrest. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters.
15(2): 221-238.
Olson, Richard, Robert Olson, and Vincent Gawronski. 1998. Night
and Day: Mitigation Policymaking in Oakland, California Before and
After the Loma Prieta Disaster. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters. 16(2): 145-179.
zerdem, Alpaslan and Sultan Barakat. 2000. After the Marmara
earthquake: lessons for avoiding short cuts to disasters. Third
World Quarterly. 21(3): 425-439.
Peacock, Walter, Betty Morrow and Hugh Gladwin. 1997. Hurricane
Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters.
Routledge: London.Peacock, Walter. 1997. Cross-national and
Comparative Disaster Research. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters 15 (1): 117-133.
Perry, Ronald and Hirotada Hirose. 1991. Volcano Management in
the United States and Japan. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press.Phillips,
Brenda D. 1993. Cultural Diversity in Disasters: Sheltering,
Housing and Long Term Recovery. International Journal of Mass
Emergencies and Disasters 11(1): 99-110.Porfiriev, Boris. 1996.
Social Aftermanth and Organizational Response to a Major Disaster:
The Case of the 1995 Sakhalin Earthquake in Russia. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management. 4(4): 218-227.
Porfiriev, Boris. 1999. Emergency and disaster legislation in
Russia: the key development trends and features. The Australian
Journal of Emergency Management 14 (1): 59-64.
Przeworski, Adam and Henry Teune. 1970. The Logic of Comparative
Social Inquiry. John Wiley: New York.
Quarantelli, E. L. 1970. The Community General Hospital: Its
immediate problems in disaster. American Behavioral Scientist.
13(3): 380-391.
Quarantelli, E.L. 1989. Human behavior in the Mexico City
earthquake: some implications from basic themes in survey findings,
Preliminary Paper #37, Disaster Research Center, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE.
Rustow, Dankwart A. and Kenneth P. Erickson. 1991. Introduction.
Pp. 1-4 in Rustow, Dankwart A. and Kenneth P. Erickson (eds.),
Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives.
HarperCollins: New York.
Sartori, Giovanni. 1991. Comparing and Miscomparing. Journal of
Theoretical Politics 3 (3): 243-257.
Sartori, Giovanni (ed.). 1966. Social Science Concepts: A
Systemic Analysis. Yale University Press: New Haven.
Scanlon, Joseph. 1994. The Role of EOCs in Emergency Management:
A Comparison of American and Canadian Experience. International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 12(1): 51-75.
Scawthorn, C. and Wenger. D. 1990. Emergency response, planning
and search and rescue, HHRC Publication 11p, Hazard Reduction and
Recovery Center, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Schneider, Saundra K. 1995. Flirting with Disaster: Public
Management in Crisis Situations. M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, New York.
Smith, Martin. 1978. American Religious Organizations in Disaster:
A Study of Congregational Response to Disaster. Mass Emergencies.
3: 133-142. Swaroop, Reddy. Factors Influencing the Incorporation
of Hazard Mitigation During Recovery from Disaster. Natural
Hazards. 22: 185-201.
Swedish Emergency Management, 2005. SEMA Welcome. Accessed at
http://www.krisberedskapsmyndigheten.se/defaultEN____224.aspx on
Oct. 2.
Terry, Francis. 2001. The 1989 Rail Disaster at Clapham in South
London. Pp. 491-99 in Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management,
edited by Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
United Nations, ISDR, 2004. Disaster Occurrence. Accessed at
http://www.unisdr.org/disaster-statistics/occurrence-trends-century.htm
on Sept. 21.
United Nations. Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. 2005.
Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. Accessed at
http://www.undp.org/bcpr/disred/rdr.htm on Sept. 21.United Nations,
ISDR, 2005. Fact Sheet #39. Accessed at
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia_near_east/tsunami/pdf/Indian_Ocean_EQ_and_TS_FS39-05.06.05.pdf
on Sept. 21.
United Nations, ISDR, 2005. Mission and Objectives. Accessed at
http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/eng/about_isdr/isdr-mission-objectives-eng.htm
on Sept. 21
Wachtendorf, Tricia. 2000. When Disasters Defy Borders: What We
can Learn from the Red River Flood about Transnational Disasters.
Australian Journal of Emergency Management. 15(3): 36-41.
Walker, Thomas W. 1994. The Economic and Political Background.
Pp. 147-159 in Goldstone, Jack A. (ed.) Revolutions: Theoretical,
Comparative and Historical Studies. Harcourt Brace: Orlando,
Fl.
Watts, M.J. and Bohle, H.G. 1993. "The Space of Vulnerability:
The Causal Structure of Hunger and Famine." Progress in Human
Geography. 17: 43-67.
Wenger, D. 1992. Emergent and volunteer behavior during
disaster: research findings and planning implications, HHRC
Publication 27P, Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas
A&M University, College Station, TX.
Wiarda, Howard J. 1993. Introduction to Comparative Politics:
Concepts and Processes. Wadsworth: Belmont, California.
Winslow, Francis. Lessons Learned from Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl Reactor Accidents Pp. 481-90 in Handbook of Crisis and
Emergency Management, edited by Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.
Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon and Ian Davis. 2004. At
Risk: Natural Hazards, Peoples Vulnerability and Disasters.
Routledge: London.Zafarullah, Habib, Mohammad Babibur Rahman, and
Mohammad Mohabbat Khan 2001. Coping with Calamities: Disaster
Management in Bangladesh. Pp. 545-58 in Handbook of Crisis and
Emergency Management, edited by Ali Farazmand. New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.
Ziakas, Tim. 2001. Environmental Public Relations and Crisis
Management: Two Paradigmatic Cases-Bhopal and Exxon. Pp. 245-57 in
Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management, edited by Ali
Farazmand. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
This is not to suggest that comparison is the best and only
method. Peacock is correct to assert that it would be bordering on
methodological arrogance to suggest that certain forms of
comparative research, be they characterized as qualitative,
quantitative, case study, cross-national, time-series or
longitudinal, or cross-sectional surveys, take precedence over
others (1997, 122). In addition, it is necessary to recognize that
the research question should logically determine which method is
prescribed.
PAGE 17